Genady

13.8 billion years ago, there was no life in the universe. 13.8 billion years later, there is life. A state without life has evolved into a state with life. This is abiogenesis.

You can take a snapshot of an accelerometer that you hold in your hand. It will show if you accelerate or not.

BTW, the bubbles may be also misleading. When diving Molokini Crater we got caught in a down current once. We held to a rock, but our bubbles were pulled down. The visibility was perfect thought, so we did not have a problem to see where the surface is.

Don't hold your breath. Chances are nobody will respond because, according to the forum Guidelines,

The vestibular system input is an important one but there are other factors that determine our perception of the vertical direction. One such factor is tactile. When we stand, sit, or lie on the ground, we feel how the ground pushes at us. This feel disappears when we are submerged and buoyant underwater. The perception of vertical direction is not so sharp anymore. We still respond to a visual clue: it is lighter above and darker below. But in night diving or when diving in very murky water this factor disappears too. It is very easy then to lose the vertical orientation completely. To make sure where is up and where is down in such case, we look at where the bubbles go.

The measurement by an accelerating observer and by a non-accelerating observer will be different.

Sorry, I have already fixed it a second ago. But thanks for the catch anyway.

I don't know if my answers are simple, but they are certainly short and leave a lot of room for more questions. Here it goes. You would not feel it. As measured by an observer relative to which you are moving. You would record time slowing down for them. I don't. It does. It does not.

Mathematics is full of statements which are true regardless of any agreements or opinions. Here is a random example from a random math textbook:

The point of the discussion is that there is truth without God.

So, it had nothing to do with the previous discussion.

No. Proven because it's true.

No truth of a proven mathematical statement has changed.

It does not matter what it was called 600 years ago. It is not called so anymore. Regardless, the names of things are neither true nor false.

Mathematical truth is the ultimate and absolute truth. Mathematics evolves by better and deeper understanding of this truth. Whatever you are talking about cannot be "everything" because it has counterexamples. Math provides the counterexamples.

This is rather a no-example. It is not called so in math. And it is also a no-example. Your statement, "there's no truth without God" is refuted by the observation that there are irrefutably true mathematical statements without God.

Do you have an example of mathematical statement that was proved to be true and later became false?

Nobody has to agree or disagree with this statement. We know that it is true because it is proven to be true. The truth of this statement was known to Euclid although it has been discovered perhaps earlier, and Euclid's proof appears in his books Elements although there are many ways to prove it. This is example of a statement which is not true. No difference.

It is so because the statement is not about "number" of primes, but about set of primes. My use of the word "number" in the original statement was sloppy. Here is the statement stated formally: ∀ S⊆P, |S|∈N ⇒ (∃ p∈P, p∉S) where P is set of primes. In English, it says "for any S subset of P, if S is finite then a prime exists which is not in S."

Because you started playing with words which are not essential for the statement. So, I've rephrased it to avoid these words. It is the same statement expressed with different words.

It does not matter. We are discussing this statement: for any finite list of primes, a prime exists that is not on the list. It is true without God.

Axler, Sheldon. Linear Algebra Done Right.

No, it is not. Number is not a symbol, it signifies counting. We count, gods count, your book counts, "day 1", "day 2", etc. is counting. So, "primes" are counts that cannot be broken down into smaller equal counts. The statement we are discussing says that for any finite list of primes, a prime exists that is not on the list.

A concept of "number" is not questioned, and "rules" have nothing to do with this statement. Also, the concept of "infinity" is not needed, because the statement simply says, that the number of primes is not finite.

Of course there is. Here is one: the number of primes is infinite.